Thursday, February 22, 2007

Thursday 02/22 A.M. Quickie:Wade, Trades, Bubbling, Combine, More

Things were going a little TOO well for Dwyane Wade: Reigning NBA Finals MVP. Reigning SI Sportsman of the Year. In the debate over "Best Player in the NBA." Marketing superstar with his own personal "branding conference" at Las Vegas during the All-Star Break.

The good mojo had to end sometime, and it came to a screeching halt last night when he dislocated his left shoulder. He could be out up to six weeks, but – as with every injury – you never know how it will affect his game.

I remain committed to my original analysis of the Heat and of the East back when it looked like Shaq wouldn't play much during the regular season: As long as Miami makes the playoff field – at any seed – and Wade/Shaq can play, they'll win the East.

(But, just in case: Do you think that the Heat can pry Vince Carter away from the Nets for, say, promising youngster Dorrell Wright?)

NBA Trade Deadline: Speaking of VC, it shouldn't hurt his trade value that he put in 46 last night in a Nets loss. (Jason Kidd, who it turns out has been playing with cracked ribs, had 6 points on 2/14 FG. Of course, he also had 14 assists and 9 rebounds.)

Meanwhile, I wonder what naysayers of the old "prep-to-pro" draft rules have to say about the fact that the Lakers aren't willing to trade 19-year-old soph Andrew Bynum for future Hall of Famer Jason Kidd.

Again: I'm for trading both Carter and Kidd. The Nets aren't getting any better, and the rebuilding might as well start now. They risk losing Carter this summer (for nothing in return). With Kidd, I don't mind them holding him for now, but only if the inevitable end-game here is that he's shipped out for some sort of value back to the team in time fo rhte move to Brooklyn.

The biggest name being thrown around, beyond the pair in Jersey: Mike Bibby. Whee. (Here's a hint: The Cavs don't win the East with Bibby. Or without him. Either way.) Is it me or has the Trade Deadline been gutted in the last 10 years?

College Hoops: The ACC is fascinating. Upstart Virginia Tech upended BC, and surprising Virginia lost to bottom-feeding Miami. Meanwhile, Maryland is suddenly on the right side of .500 in the conference (which should put them in the field of 65, for now), beating FloridaState (which has lost 5 straight -- and all mo from earlier this season).

Is Texas A&M for real? Consider this: They beat OklahomaState. By 20. In Stillwater. More and more, I'm getting ready to go long on the Aggies in the NCAA Tournament, and less and less I'm thinking they are a fluke.

So. Ill. wins Mo Valley regular season title. As any good mid-major fan knows, winning the conference regular-season title doesn't mean much. At this point, the league needs to be defined by how deep its teams go in the NCAA Tournament.

SEC: Newly ranked Vandy suffers a classic let-down game in a loss to MississippiState. (Meanwhile, the Gators rebounded from the loss with win over South Carolina. That's one win down, 11 more in a row to go until the Repeat.)

Women's Hoops: I don't talk much about women's college hoops, but it's worth noting that Oklahoma's Courtney Paris could be the most dominating women's college player ever. Last night, she had 32 points and 13 rebounds for her 53rd straight double-double.

However, one of the more intriguing prospects is former Florida D-lineman Marcus Thomas, who was arguably the Gators' best player before being booted off the team for repeated rule violations involving pot. (Can you imagine what the D would have done to OhioState if he had been available?) He's a First Round talent with Moss/Sapp-style baggage. Somehow, I think that NFL GMs will be ready to overlook the baggage.

NFL Coaching: Lovie and Bears still apart. If I was Smith, I would play out next year, then cash in with a huge deal from, say, the Redskins.

MLB: Manny being Manny. It's so sweet when "family issues" really means "attending a car auction." This instantly jumps into one of the Top 5 Manny stories.

MLB Arbitration Mania! Chad Cordero was a big winner, earning a huge raise from $525K to $4.15M. (It's not like the Nats didn't recognize his value, given that they offered $3.65M. But, given the woeful state of the Nats pitching, Cordero's value can't be diminished.)

U of Cincy Sex Scandal: Perhaps you're like me, just waiting for the alleged "video" to hit YouTube.

(However, I'm trying to figure out where the issue is. Is the allegation that the four football recruits somehow sexually assaulted the former UC soccer player, or was it consensual? Is it that they were drinking? Is it that it was videotaped? Because I have to say: Football recruits having sex where drinking was involved is hardly scandalous, unless there's some coercion involved. Have yet to see that here. Let's get the players involved to step forward and talk about it openly.)

Boxing: Tommy Morrison is a Morr-on.

Wimbledon: It's nice to see the women finally getting paid as much as the men (particularly because the women's side is a hell of a lot more interesting than the men's). If they were REALLY going on "value," the women could/should/would actually be paid MORE than the guys.

"Fortunately" Wade got hurt last night where they may be able to pull off some trade to hold down the fort IF he can come back for a playoff run.

A&M is for real. Yes they play in the weakest Big 12 I can remember since its formation, but they are legit. Acie Law is going to be the starting point guard for some NBA team in the next year or two, he's that good.

Dan said "I wonder what naysayers of the old "prep-to-pro" draft rules have to say about the fact that the Lakers aren't willing to trade 19-year-old soph Andrew Bynum for future Hall of Famer Jason Kidd."

Imagine how much better he'd be if he had a year of college hoops under his belt.

There is a big difference. The Duke case were rape accusations. This case is not. It's all consensual. Sure the Duke case proved to be a lie, but at the time, there were serious charges. There will be no charges with this. Now I'm not condoning what happened at UC, but it's a lot different than what happened at Duke. (again, before we found out that the stripper lied).

It's easy to find a couple of good examples of prep to pro stars (but Bynum isn't a major contributor to the Lakers right now) looking at Kobe, Garnett, Lebron....

But there are as many flame-outs as there are stars. The difference is, in college they would get the opportunity to perfect their game working against equal or inferior talent. That gives them the opportunity to learn and grow.

Oden and Durant both say they are very happy they went to college, if only for a year. What they have learned this year is immeasurable (think an NBA team would be happy with a one-handed Oden using his off-arm throughout the first half of the season?).

And if there is one thing NFL GMs have learned in the past few years -- Character matters. That's why Marcus Thomas will not go in the top 2 rounds. Someone will take a 3rd round flyer with him, like the Broncos did with Clarett (see how that turned out?). Character issues is why Colston fell to the 7th round, not talent. We'll wait 2-3 years to see if they reappear before judging him on that.

Murr-lend is actually quite solid. They aren't barely in the tourney anymore. Bracketology has them at a 9 seed and rising. They have three games left; DUKE, NC, NC STATE.

Barring a loss to NC STATE, the Terps will be a decent spot in the tourney. Playing NC and DUKE can't hurt. What's impressive is this; RPI and SOS, both in the top 20.

What also doesn't hurt is that all 5 of their starters average double figures, they have 2 guys averaging 7 boards a game, and 3 different guys average at least 3.5 assists a game.

Add the fact that when they have the ball Mike Jones is deadly from behind the arc and Ekene Ibekwe is a terror near the basket and when they don't have the ball DJ Strawberry is a premier perimiter defender and down low the Terps lead the ACC in blocks.

And they start 3 seniors, a Junior, and have a tandem of starting freshman point guards, and have size with 2 HUGE guys coming of the bench.

And they play in the ACC, where your regular season is against tourney teams.

As long as A&M does not play Texas Tech in the Tournament, they look like a good pick! Bobby Knight has got them figured out (2-0 vs A&M this season).

We have gotta expand on that VC trade scenario. Carter for Dorell Wright wouldn't even come close to matching salaries...we're talking a max player vs. a guy on the NBA's graduated rookie payscale (low-end at that - picked #19). The Heat would have to throw in an Antoine Walker, Jason Williams, etc. just to make the salaries match...Mickey Arison has long had an aversion to paying the luxury tax.

It has nothing to do with prep-to-pro and it has everything to do with not wanting to give up potential for a beat up old point guard. It's not like getting Jason Kidd is going to make the Lakers favorites for the NBA title. So why make the move?

And like a couple of other people have said, make the women play 5 sets. I don't care if women get equal pay, but if the women at my office got equal pay and got to leave work at 1:00 everyday it would be pretty annoying.

Maryland is solid and Texas AM is for real. I see them as a 2 seed in the tourney. So Ill is awesome. As a UNI fan, it kills me to say that, but when you're good, you're good. Vandy: saw that coming a mile away.

Marcus Thomas will not get drafted early. Character is getting bigger and bigger in today's NFL. As mentioned before, look at Maurice Clarett and Marcus Vick. No coach wants his team to be another Bengals team. The Colts and Steelers won the Super Bowl with guys that have great character. That's the new trend. Accept it.

Sorry I won't be on much today guys. I got in a car accident last night and Have to try and get my car started and then go get an estimate somewhere. Kinda lame but s*** happens right? Have a good one guys!

I gotta agree with Dan here and I'm suprised at the amount of posters who have a problem with women making the same amount as the men. Winnings should have nothing to do with the number of sets that are played. Winnings, purses, salary, etc. in any other sport has nothing to do with the duration of the event.

Athletes, the quality of their services, and the amount of public interest is what creates revenues for these events. They should be paid accordingly.

The winnings for the women's Wimbeldon champion has nothing to do with how many sets she plays. Would you argue that if she beat her opponent in straight sets, she should only get paid for playing 2? This makes no sense.

Instead, it should rightly be treated like every other sport and many other jobs as a proportion of the revenue that is brought in.

As NFL TV contracts skyrocket, NFL players are paid more. The same is true for every other sport because their services are worth more.

Women's tennis has more stars, and more appeal (regardless of whether the reasons are wrong or right)than men's tennis. As a result, they should be paid at least the same and if TV ratings and fan interest is higher for women's tennis than men's, then they have a point in asking for even more money.

The argument has nothing to do with gender equality. It's all Adam Smith.

I absolutely agree. 3 years ago when Serena and Venus were dominant, women's tennis was much more entertaining. But now, with Federer and Nadal and his man-capris, it's better competition and amazing to watch. The women's game right now has some talent, but outside of Serena and Maria, none that have personalities.

The perception that men's and women's tennis is equal in popularity is a bt of a myth. I heard Mary Carillo once mention that even though men's and women's tennis is pretty much equal in the U.S, in other parts of the world, it's not even close. The men easily outdistance the women. Carillo would know.

Terps are definitely in - why leave any doubt? 4 straight wins, top 20 RPI and SOS, and non-conference wins over Mich St, Illinois, and Winthrop. The kicker is that they've been positively destroying other bubble teams who you'd think would be playing tough because they have everything to lose - Fla St., Clemson, GT.

Brian in Oxford...go easy on Jim Calhoun, he has won two national championships...and he got a team with no heart to the elite eight last year, they lost to a team of destiny...that's my story and I'm sticking to it.

Obviously UConn is having an awful season, but I wouldn't want to play the Huskies in the Big East Tourney. If they end up with the 10, 11 or 12 seed in the Big East, that means in the first round they would play either the 5, 6 or 7 seed in the big east (Syracuse, Marquette or West Virginia right now) I'm just saying, those teams aren't too scary, then again, nether is UConn this year.

Let's not forget, Syracuse went on a run in the Big East last year when no one thought they would, and got in the Big Dance.

Also, I went on the record before the season started that my pick to win the National Championship was Texas A & M. I'm sticking with it, even if the bandwagon gets full. (I don't know if the record was here, but I definately did)

It's not a new biological argument. Physically, men can perform more than women. Can the women play 5 sets? Sure. But there may be more breakdowns over the season. This sounds terribly sexist of me. However, men are stronger, faster in general, so they can do more and it works out equally on the body. Those women are still the best in the world, and should be paid as much as the best men in the world.

"Winnings should have nothing to do with the number of sets that are played. Winnings, purses, salary, etc. in any other sport has nothing to do with the duration of the event."

I agree fundamentally with that premise. However, geoff makes a better point - if others in my office were allowed to do 60% of the work and still be paid the same rate as me, I'd be pretty pissed off.

As to your argument about winning in straight sets... fine, then make it 67%, where a woman is required to play a minimum of 2 sets, and a man is required to play 3.

(I'm sure I'm doing wonders to win over the female readership of this site, so this next diatribe probably isn't going to help...)

I have a real problem with a lot of aspects of women's sports. Not the sports themselves, not the athletes themselves. But the argument that female athletes (in some sports, not all) are equal.

(I'll wait a second for the ladies to gather their pitchforks and torches).

The WNBA is not equal to the NBA. The women's league has different rules, different equipment - it's a different game.

Women's hockey is not equal to the NHL (or any men's hockey league). Again, different rules - no checking, are you kidding? What's the point? - different equipment, etc.

My contention is that female athletes are most definately athletes. There is no argument that they could outplay 85% of the men in the world in their respective sports. But if you were to put women into the NBA, or NHL, NFL, MLB, etc., I think you'd see the profound differences in ability. Other than as a sideshow attraction, I cannot imagine that they would thrive in the men's leagues, with the men's rules.

That's the best way to define it - could they be competetive and play well enough to stay employed in a men's league. I'm not making the argument that women can't play sports - please don't take it that way. But I am making the argument that not all women's sports are equal to their male counterparts.

Bringing it back to a compensation argument, if a woman is holding the same job as a man, but is doing less work, she deserves to be paid at an equal rate? Isn't that the definition of Socialism - Everyone shares everything equally, regardless of ability or effort?

The women's tennis players tend to make much more in endorsements - that oughtta be enough.

Big D: Lest we forget, women golfers on the PGA tour...it basically proves your point, if that was Michelle Wie's full time job, she'd be unemployed by now...same goes for Annika Sorenstam, neither have made a cut, therefore haven't made a payday, therefore, wouldn't make a living

Also, not to harp on the UConn thing too much, but seriously, those years where the UConn women were awesome and the Men were medicore (2000-2001) there were actual people who thought the womens' team could beat the men. I mean it's laughable. I really think the worst men's D-I team (Iona) could beat the best D-I women's team (Duke) by 100, if they tried

I think the 60%-67% work ethic is an interesting argument, but not a good one.

I will argue using Adam Smith. The winners purses are derived from the funds received by tv deals, endorsement deals, and gate receipts. So no matter who is playing -- man/ woman/ top 5/ bottom 5/ horse....whatever, the purse is a function of economics.

But as such, the men should make more than the women. I have never been to Wimbledon (and can't find this exact answer online), but of the tennis tourneys I have seen, the men usually outdraw the women outside of the championship round (which always sells out). And, at least in some tournaments, the ticket price to see the men is slightly more than to see the women. So more people pay more money to watch men than women..... why would this merit equal pay? Wimbledon is not splitting its money based on economics of the sport (a la Adam Smith), but rather because of the socialist aspect of the sport.

Now, I would pay good money to see Maria against Serena, so maybe those two could get a spike in earnings.....

When I was a kid, our high school had a top 10 nationally ranked women's basketball team and a men's team that won about 1/4 of its games. When the women were preparing for the state finals (against a bigger, more physical team), they wanted a realistic physical challenge to practice against. So our top 10 women's team played the men's sophomore team (my dad was the coach of the men's team) and the men crushed them. It wasn't a matter of which team was better (clearly the women had a better team), it was a matter of physical ability.

If a woman in your office was worth more to the company (financially) and did 60% less work and brought in the same or more production and revenue as you, you'd be out of a job. They'd fire your ass and hire her to work the other 60% of the time and it would be smart business. And you're company wouldn't care that you were pissed, because they'd be more than happy to higher a more productive employee to benefit the company and drop the dead weight.

I didn't really catch the "fatal-flaw" in my reasoning, but were you suggesting that women should be paid 3/5 of what men are paid based on the maximum number of sets possible played? That's ridiculous. I can tell you that if Federer got paid 40% less for every guy he beat in straight sets instead of stinging him along for 5, he'd be pretty annoyed.

With all that said, the number of sets played argument is pointless argument and without merit because it has nothing to do with the revenue that the women generate. It's chauvinism.

How much the women get paid has nothing to do with how good of athletes they are, or how they would stack up against men, or even the quality of play. It has to do with the amount of revenue generated that their sport brings in.

The women who play in the WNBA are not paid less than NBA players because they are lesser athletes. They are paid less because their league does not generate anywhere near the same amount of revenue as the NBA, therefore their services aren't worth nearly as much. If the WNBA was a popular league where stadiums were packed and people watched the games on TV, salaries would increase.

Like I said before, it really doesn't have anything to do with gender equality, but the economics of the situation.

As long as the sexes are playing in separate tournaments, their purses should be determined by what the market will bear, no? The obvious problem is that the tournaments are being held at the same time at the same location, and so it becomes really difficult to guage what each separate sex would draw on its own.It's not like people say, I don't want to go to a women's match, because they don't play as many sets.

The point isn't that men are better tennis players than women, and therefore somehow deserve more money for it....(otherwise there'd be no women in pro sports), it's that the women do what is asked of them to provide an entertaining tournament just as well as the men do....sometimes better, sometimes not.

I remember hearing arguments that some women would welcome 5-setters in the majors....but I can't remember the source of those points.

I don't see why women tennis players getting equal prize money at Wimbleton as the men is such a negative thing to so many of you. They already do at all the other slams. And for those of you who would complain about working with someone who gets paid the same for 67% of the work, perhaps you should consider that on average women receive less compensation for doing the same job as men here in America.

Anyway, it seems like most of the tennis players are fine with this, and I would think that their opinion should count for something here. Perhaps you should complain about the U.S. military too...the physical qualifications are different for men and women, and yet they are paid on the same scale.

When Wade first went down I have to admit I thought he was pulling one of his let me overexaggerate my pain, head into the lockerroom and come back out in the 4th qtr and kill T-Mac shenanigans until I saw him crying on the bench. I hope he's okay. If the Lakers are going to give up Andrew Bynum they better get Kevin Garnett in return. J Kidd isn't enough to push the Laker's over the top. This is unrelated, but if its true that K G thinks that he shouldn't have to be traded because the Wolves should just build around him, then no one is aloud to feel sorry for him anymore. He deserves to stay in Minnesota with Kevin Mchale if he has that type of attitude this deep into his career. It's like he's the only one who can't see that the Wolves aren't going anywhere.

Jackson struggled throughout his rookie year to stay healthy and learn the team's offense. Considered a surefire future starter, he now faces a long rehab and may not be at full speed until 2008 because of the timing of the injury. Reche Caldwell and Jabar Gaffney look like starters for now, but New England's need for a quality wide receiver this off-season just grew more pressing.

Anybody who questions D-Wade on the pain because he was crying has never hurt their shoulder badly. When I was pitching in Little League I threw a fastball that shredded my rotator cuff ALL THE WAY THROUGH. I was in so much pain that I lost my peripheral vision and had to be carried off the field and taken straight to the ER.

As far as Women IN SPORTS goes... I think it is simple. Saying they try very hard and should therefore be payed as much is just stupid. The guy on the end of the bench tries as much as the star player and they don't get payed the same. The women are just as entertaining? You need to watch more tennis. I once heard a female tennis broadcaster say that the top 100 male HIGH SCHOOL tennis players in the country could win most Women's grand slams. I can personally say that I played with a guy on my tennis team in HS who served over 100 on every first serve. Just like how SERENA crushes the other women. But he was more athletic. But he didn't scream as much.

SO HOW DO YOU GET THEIR PAY SCALE? Simple. Percentage of revenue. It's the only way. I like this also because if it was applied to the WNBA it would cause of the players to pay money to play because the league has lost money in every season but the first one.

CMFOST- on BC- see my post on Sunday at the beginning of the comments and just add V-Tech

Regarding the women/men argument. No problem with women making what the men make. Totally fair and should've been done a long time ago. I do have issues with the fact that women's tennis is more "interesting" or has more "value" than the men's side? What's the reasoning behind that? Ratings for men's matches are higher. Women don't sell any more tickets. I just don't get where that comes from, over than the fact that you'd rather gawk at the women.

By the way Dan, care to revise this...

"NBA All-Star Weekend! I said this the moment they announced the game would be in Las Vegas: No matter what happens on the court, this is arguably the most exciting single moment for the league since Michael Jordan's final Finals game with the Bulls.

Perhaps we all need to actually be in Vegas to fully appreciate the scope of the pending debauchery, but I think we can all do it justice with our fantasies of the party scene, plus what shapes up to be epic reportage from the scene (particularly from bloggers, who can file the GOOD scoop).

The biggest upshot of the weekend is that it will be such a huge success that the city will not only earn an NBA franchise, but an NHL and MLB franchise, too."

It sounds as if it was a disaster. There has been no real good reporting that I've seen either. Do you think David Stern is in a hurry to go back to Vegas?

"Based on online sports traffic trends, which have shifted dramatically in the last year, more bloggers should soon be populating the SBJ (Sports Business Journal) list (That Deadspin's Will Lietch already populates). First up would likely be DC-based "blogfather" Jamie Mottram, who has turned the constantly-updated AOL Sports Blog ("Fanhouse") into a powerhouse. Other highly-trafficked sports blog-based sites that will warrant consideration in the future: WithLeather, ProFootballTalk, InsideHoops, TheBigLead, Ben Maller, DAN SHANOFF and KissingSuzyKolber."

But, "guyinthecorner", you were in Little League! Wade is the most pampered player in the league...even more than Kobe. I'm shocked that a foul wasn't called on Battier on the play!Never in my life have I see a professional athlete cry because of injury while still on the field/ice/court until last night. And to be hauled off in a wheelchair...puuuhhhleaze!

I think the Bynum-Kidd non-deal is EXACTLY why the NBA had to do something about the high school kids to the NBA. I will admit I don't like the rule they made, but I agree with the purpose. The Lakers are holding onto Bynum for potential, not production, but yet he's still taking a roster spot from a player that could be very productive, (and make the NBA product better). So now the Lakers won't trade an ~8.5 ppg player for a future hall of famer and top 2 Pg?

Here's what the NBA SHOULD have done. Make a rule saying that all NBA players must have 2 years of "Developmental ball" experience before being on an NBA roster. D-Ball can be foreign pro leagues, NBA-D, Div-1 or 2 college ball etc. This allows players not to be forced into college, but given the option of going there instead.

Then create the "LeBron Rule" which works similarly to the MLS "Beckham Rule." Allow every team one allotted "Youngster" slot and 3 "development slots" that say they can have one roster spot for someone who doesn't have the experience to normally be on the roster. The development spots allow them to put a player on an NBA-D team and still have their rights. These slots can be traded with no more than 2 "youngster's"on the same team.

Here you get the best of both worlds, all the great HS talents in the NBA (LeBron, Garnett, Kobe) would go straight to the NBA, the HSers who need to gain experience (Bynum, Jermaine O'Neil, etc) can develop and not rot on the bench making room for contributing role players, and Kids can still come out after HS and not basically be forced into college (which is not for everyone)

Although your right about Texas A&M being very good, the starting five of Oklahoma state smuggles more bone than a Tim Hardaway Nightmare. They were pathetic in every essence of the word. It's a shame to see that Sean Sutton has no control over his team. He better find his pop's diary and turn to the page where it teaches you how to not suck again.

BREAKING NEWS: Former Celtics guard Dennis Johnson died today at age 52, Celtics executive director of basketball operations Danny Ainge confirmed to the Globe. The Austin American-Statesman is reporting on its website that Johnson fell ill at the Austin Convention Center in Texas this afternoon. Johnson, an NBA Hall of Fame guard who played on championship teams with Ainge, Larry Bird, Kevin McHale, and Robert Parish in the 1980s, was the coach of the Austin Toros, a team in the NBA Development League with an affiliation to the Celtics.

Connect With Me

Quickish

About This Blog

DanShanoff.com is a sports-blog spin-off of my long-time ESPN.com column, "The Daily Quickie." Anchored by an early-morning post of must-know topics, the blog is updated frequently throughout the day with new posts and user comments.